Maintenance ordered in this judgment.
Month: July 2018
Pothuri Lakshmi Vs Pothuri Kiran on 30 September, 2016
This is from Para 20 of this judgment. Read and enjoy.
Hence, it is well Further it is also settled, that the present Act does not make any exception, in favour of those who are physically challenged. The Act recognizes that right of women to be maintained even by a physically challenged husband. Thus the contention of husband that he is not working and not earning is unstainable. Further more, economic abuse means deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which woman is entitled under any law or custom. It is customary that a man is legally and morally obligated to provide material needs and means of livelihood to a wife and child. Hence, it is well established by the petitioner that she faced economic abuse in the hands of respondents. Accordingly she is entitled for maintenance.
Saiba Sreedevi Vs Saiba Sridhara Rao on 26 June, 2013
No DV was proved by Knife hence DVC is dismissed
Boyapati Bharathi Vs Boyapati Srinivasa Rao on 6 March, 2018
No comment. Just read
Velpula Kalyani Vs Velpula Venkata Rao on 4 December, 2017
It seems, the burden of proof is pushed onto the husband who has to prove that he didn’t commit DV. This is the essence of this judgment.
Note: The husband was acquitted in the IPC 498A case filed by Knife. Here is the judgment.
Ganipineni Sudharani Vs Ganipineni KrishnaMohan on 2 May, 2017
Here is another BS judgment from same justice. Blatant misinterpretation of an earlier Supreme Court order to cause advantage to the party of Knife. Either by ignorance or for kickbacks received. God Knows
Shame on him.
Kasukurthi Sowjanya Vs Kasukurthi Venkata Rao on 18 February, 2016
Knife lied in cross-examination in court quite in contradiction with content in her petition and judge tossed it into dustbin.
Ashmin Kashmiri Vs Pushkar Kashmiri on 4 July, 2018
In this judgment Justice Dharam Chand Choudhary has affirmed that under section 23 of DV Act, the Magistrate should be satisfied that the DV application prima facie discloses that the respondent is committing, or has committed and act of domestic violence, he may grant an ex parte order on the basis of the affidavit.
As such the case is returned back to trial court to proceed in according to law.
Citations: [2
Other Source links:
Avishek Goenka Vs Union Of India & Anr on 27 April, 2012
This is the Hon’ble Apex Court order affirming the guidelines of TRAI/DoT in regards to providing of subscriber database, Base Transceiver Station (BTS) location, Call Detail Record (CDR) and Customer Acquisition Form (CAF) to Department of Telecommunication or Designated Security Agencies.
Here is the operative portion from point 11 (ii) which is of interest for us.
In case, CAF of any subscriber is asked by the TERM Cells/ designated Security Agencies, the original/scan copy of CAF & documents shall be furnished within 1 hour. Subscriber data will be provided in 1 hr. BTS Location shall also be provided within 1 hour but not later than 6 Hours. CDRs upto 6 months old shall be provided within 12 hours and CDR more than 6 months old shall be provided within 24 hours.
Gunakala Durga Rani Vs Gunakala Sudhakar on 6 January 2015
The Knife got here DV petition dismissed. LOL
Key points
- Unexplained delay
- Dowry not proved
- No return of articles given voluntarily
